E8 and Lie … reality or gobbledegook?

For:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/19/maths_universe_everything/

The most conventional approach to unification right now is string theory, which suggests that the fundamental particles are not actually fundamental at all, but are rather all different expressions of one thing: a string. Different vibrational modes let us “see” different things, so one vibration shows us an electron, another a proton, and so on*.

But Lisi says he doesn’t like it because it lacks elegance. He says that when he started to play around with the E8 Lie group structure, it seemed to help the disparate pieces of our knowledge – fundamental forces, particles and so on – fit neatly together.

“It would be kind of nice if it all made sense, mathematically anyway,” he is quoted as saying. “It’s nice to think that there’s a bigger picture that’s beautiful and that we’re all a part of it.”

Against:

https://phys.org/news/2010-03-simple-theory-enigmatic-e8.html#jCp

The “exceptionally simple theory of everything,” proposed by a surfing physicist in 2007, does not hold water, says Emory University mathematician Skip Garibaldi.

Garibaldi did the math to disprove the , which involves a mysterious structure known as E8. The resulting paper, co-authored by physicist Jacques Distler of the University of Texas, will appear in an upcoming issue of Communications in .

“The beautiful thing about math and physics is that it is not subjective,” says Garibaldi. “I wanted a peer-reviewed paper published, so that the scientific literature provides an accurate state of affairs, to help clear up confusion among the lay public on this topic.”

In November of 2007, physicist Garrett Lisi published an online paper entitled “An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything.” Lisi spent much of his time surfing in Hawaii, adding a bit of color to the story surrounding the theory. Although his paper was not peer-reviewed, and Lisi himself commented that his theory was still in development, the idea was widely reported in the media, under attention-grabbing headlines like “Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything.”

Maybe, maybe not:

Yes, I’m going to mention THAT interminable book of mine again or at least quote from it.  The two protagonists are at the end of the earth’s allotted timespan and have been ‘beamed up’ to an orb.

Below, over Har Megiddon, humanity is being mass slaughtered, blood flows down to the Mediterranean, the Kishon is fetid:

Gabriella returned and with a gesture, invited them to continue the questions.

Nikki opened. ‘Why can’t you help those people still on earth – just because they don’t believe, they must die?’

‘Inside both of you is … let me find a word you would understand in human terms … let’s call it a code, an embedded code -’

‘Who embedded it?’

‘Who wrote your DNA? This code alerts us, enables us to assist you, keeps you alive, even now. Without that code, we have no communication channel and we have no mechanism by which we can send aid your way.’

You might expect that I, someone who believes in what Christianity is about without being particularly good at it, would dismiss E8 out of hand, dismiss the Book of Enoch, dismiss string theory but I ask why?

Why can’t E8 be a not bad theoretical model, coming from a different perspective?

To me, one key question is – is it trying to nullify and deny a metaphysical dimension as described in the NT or is it trying to explain it with an open mind?

Another key question is whether to blindly believe a perverted version of reality, as an AOC does, then try to corrupt key NT precepts, key socio-economic precepts as well, as this Pope now does, making equivalent his supposed faith and Islam – to make something ‘fluid’, e.g. gender fluid, when it is not fluid at all but down to DNA – that is indeed perverted, that is relativism writ large.

The Bernoulli effect is real and works for a sailboat but it is not strictly that which induces flow – this is known, there are other factors but still – it’s a good working model.

I believe in that sort of science, it is rigid in method but some things must be, due to our limited perception as humans, theoretical. If you accept a model such as E8, then why would you not accept other unprovable models on psychological grounds?

This I take up in a post on April 1st, called Religion. There is much religion at, for example, CERN. And what did happen at the LHC that no one is speaking of?

Post navigation

5 comments for “E8 and Lie … reality or gobbledegook?

  1. Charles
    March 18, 2019 at 16:47

    Baroque physics. These people need something constructive to do. Perhaps gardening or lawn maintenance?

  2. dearieme
    March 18, 2019 at 17:58

    By far the best thing I’ve read on String Theory is Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe. For an American he writes remarkably well. He did his PhD at Oxford but perhaps that’s correlation rather than cause.

    Maybe things have advanced since he wrote it but his account made it clear to me that it was barely physics at all because it was utterly beyond testing by experiment or observation. I fear that some awfully able people will have frittered their lives away on a dead end.

    There you go – that’s science for you. At least it’s not a pack of lies like Goebbels Warming.

  3. ivan
    March 18, 2019 at 22:47

    Some of these mathematicians would be better employed in trying to explain why the Michelson/Morley experiment didn’t give a null result – it was half the calculated result if there was there aether present. The positive result was confirmed by Datyon Miller at the US naval research facility at Mt. Wilson and his results were later castigated by a rabid devotee of Einstein because it cast doubt on the special relativity. Maybe if someone had followed it up rather than keeping the faith with relativity we might have been nearer to getting out into space without all the primitive rockets.

    • Andy5759
      March 18, 2019 at 23:07

      We, humanity, have missed many boats but another one miraculously turns up one the next tide to patiently await our embarkation. Our current technology is just so nineteenth century, our current potential is – well, it’s potent. I have money on intelligent design, us being a part of that design.

  4. March 19, 2019 at 03:24

    Hmmm, food for thought there. Provable/disprovable, also dogma of special relativity. All of this ties in with an upcoming post which also gets onto hormones.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.